Support NeoGAF

[serenewarfare]

I could see the argument that Nintendo may be making less in the long run by making it a "one-time" deal as opposed to F2P, but trying to paint the idea of not using microtransactions as "anti-consumer" might be the most laughably wrong thing I've read on GAF all year.

 

[ghibli99]

^ Can't you continue to buy coins and stuff though, beyond the $10 unlock?

Also, next time I agree that they should just charge $10 up front. And when it comes to Android, I can almost guarantee that there will be a free demo and then an outright premium one available separately.

 

[oti]

Which is something I can't fathom. I really don't understand how people will pay $700 - $800 for a device, but then want (or even expect) everything to be free on it. So much so that they will complain and scream bloody murder when someone asks them to pay for something that had a lot of work put into it.

Of course, I'm pretty much old now, and I'm starting to understand what that means. lol

I can honestly say that I truly don't understand anymore. I guess I knew this day would come, but I'm only 44. I always thought I would be like 60 before I really began to feel disconnected.

Multiple reasons but the main point is this:

Most services and apps we use are free. Social media, browser, YouTube. All free. On average people only use 5 apps throughout the day. The cost for them? Zero dollars.

Games are a bit different by nature but since most games are services as well nowadays this distinction is fading by the day.

Other reason: Because it makes sense. People accept these ridiculous prices for Apple phones because they know the services they use are free. Imagine being Apple and having to sell your customers $1k+ iPhones and apps for $10 each on top. No way that would work.


As much as we might hate it or don't like it, this is the model the market chose to embrace. And as long as there are no forces from outside like regulations I don't see it going away. Because in the end, the worst thing that could happen from inside is people just not downloading new apps. But why would they stop? They're free after all.

 

[Team Filler]

I can't even overstate how upsetting this mentality is for me.

Nintendo just never wins with these kinds of people. It's not enough that Nintendo is actually putting their games on another platform besides their own now (which so many whined for so long about wanting to happen), but so many remain fucking-cheapskate stingy when it comes to even supporting these games they proclaim to want.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Also, next time I agree that they should just charge $10 up front. And when it comes to Android, I can almost guarantee that there will be a free demo and then an outright premium one available separately.

You can release demos on Android? If so, that's great and Apple needs to get on that.

 

[JayEH]

The mobile market is so weird. I don't know why you just wouldn't want everything at a reasonably low price instead of possibly suckered in to spending a bunch of money.

 

[serenewarfare]

^ Can't you continue to buy coins and stuff though, beyond the $10 unlock?

Also, next time I agree that they should just charge $10 up front. And when it comes to Android, I can almost guarantee that there will be a free demo and then an outright premium one available separately.

No. The game offers no transactions beyond the initial $10 fee.

 

[Oersted]

Miitomo and Pokemon Go are F2P, Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem will be F2P.

But Super Mario Run is not F2P, therefore Nintendo is doing it totally wrong.

Weird thread.

 

[KingSnake]

I partially agree with the OP and I posted this also in the SMR OT.

The game had a very successful launch with a record number of downloads and leading the grossing charts. The question will be how it will be able to be successful and it remains to be seen.

But SMR had also a record number of negative feedback (even the rating in the app store is one quite bad for a top game) because of the model used. People are used to micro-transactions and are accepting them because they are perceived as optional. You can play the full game for free if you want and you choose to pay for being impatient and not wanting to wait 5 more minutes. It seems like a personal decision while with SMR it's a paywall. Because the app is "free" in the store. Yes, it was communicated bla, bla ... but people download a ton of free apps (especially the ones already popular) to try them without reading too much about it.

From a perception point of view it would have been better to be a paid game all together. But from a business point of view the current model might be better if people who try it are convinced to pay $10. If not there goes that 1 star review! Win some, lose some.

 

[serenewarfare]

You can release demos on Android? If so, that's great and Apple needs to get on that.

I mean you can do it on the App Store too. It used to happen all the time in the form of "Lite" versions of premium apps. Doesn't happen much anymore though because most of the devs that offered "Lite" versions went to the F2P model completely.

 

[Vital Tundra]

The issue here is mobile games have made people used to f2p and advertisements. The more pay to play games that are successful the more likely people will start to value mobile games in a way that will make them actually want to drop chump change for a game. What is pro-consumer when it comes to cost? If its f2p so be it, but p2p is not any less pro-consumer. Someone made a game, if you want to buy it you can buy it. If not, you don't.

Super Mario Run isn't anti-consumer because it cost money to play the game to completion, thats nonsense.

Yeah there is more money to be made in f2p, but why not try and condition people to stop being completely cheap and actually find value in a payed product?

Nintendo will release more games on mobile devices, and they will be f2p and p2p, and thats not a bad thing. They know what they are doing with their pricing model, and Pokemon GO shows their plan works.

 

[ghibli99]

You can release demos on Android? If so, that's great and Apple needs to get on that.

Yep, there are tons of apps that have free/ad-supported and premium distinctions (Terraria, Moon+ Reader Pro, Reddit Sync Pro, etc.).

 

[elkniwcire]

Wait...doesn't it say there's a $9.99 unlock on the left side of the screen? Games that have a pay option always have it listed on the main page for the game/app. There shouldn't have been any sticker shock here.

Not really. This is what most people see when they go to download (replace the open button with a "get" button). No mention of $9.99 anywhere. The charge is buried all the way at the bottom under "top in-app purchases"

 

[OrbitalBeard]

The mobile market is so weird. I don't know why you just wouldn't want everything at a reasonably low price instead of possibly suckered in to spending a bunch of money.

Probably because a large portion of the mobile market never spends a dime. I can understand not wanting to pay $10 if you're not used to doing so already. What I don't understand is the anger.

 

[DigtialT]

You can release demos on Android? If so, that's great and Apple needs to get on that.

Id just be a separate app to the premium one. Lite version is free with the first few levels, then an add for the full game. This was really popular to do a bit ago, but have fallen out of style not that F2P games have taken over. Nintendo could have done that on IOS as well but for some reason chose not too.

 

[DigitalScrap]

Multiple reasons but the main point is this:

Most services and apps we use are free. Social media, browser, YouTube. All free. On average people only use 5 apps throughout the day. The cost for them? Zero dollars.

Games are a bit different by nature but since most games are services as well nowadays this distinction is fading by the day.

Other reason: Because it makes sense. People accept these ridiculous prices for Apple phones because they know the services they use are free. Imagine being Apple and having to sell your customers $1k+ iPhones and apps for $10 each on top. No way that would work.

Yeah, I'm realizing that I am more and more of an outlier. I have plenty of paid for apps (not games) that I use on my iOS devices. I definitely have come to the realization that I am not the "average user" apparently. I have bought plenty of $10+ apps.

It's okay, the game still seems to be doing quite well - it's 2nd top grossing today - above some of the long term top grossing games with the crappy models (Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, etc.). We'll see how quickly it drops.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

It's sitting at number 1 on the charts. Kinda hard to argue the price isn't consumer friendly cause "it's not what mobile consumers want."

Nintendo did right here. I can only hope this will get the ball rolling to shift mobile gaming away from its usual cash grabby payment systems.

 

[ghibli99]

No. The game offers no transactions beyond the initial $10 fee.

Oh, that's good -- I saw the coin thing elsewhere (where you get Toad), and assumed there was more you could buy.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

I could see the argument that Nintendo may be making less in the long run by making it a "one-time" deal as opposed to F2P, but trying to paint the idea of not using microtransactions as "anti-consumer" might be the most laughably wrong thing I've read on GAF all year.

The line " they will also lose mobile consumer trust" also tickled me.

Losing consumer trust by not nickel and dime-ing the customer! Oh my!

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Id just be a separate app to the premium one. Lite version is free with the first few levels, then an add for the full game. This was really popular to do a bit ago, but have fallen out of style not that F2P games have taken over. Nintendo could have done that on IOS as well but for some reason chose not too.

This is essentially what I'm talking about. If Nintendo could have done this but chose not to, that's pretty disappointing.

 

[sanstesy]

From a perception point of view it would have been better to be a paid game all together. But from a business point of view the current model might be better if people who try it are convinced to pay $10. If not there goes that 1 star review! Win some, lose some.

No, that's a misconception starting to be created in this thread and it's completely false. If the game would be $9,99 upfront, the result would be even worse and a lot of people wouldn't even consider it, nevermind buy it. At least in this case, people are downloading it, liking it and playing it even if they don't like the model. It's definitely better for their brand and their profit in comparison to the upfront price, despite the perception.

But in the end it's still infinitely inferior to the F2P model in literally every way.

 

[Deleted member 465307]

The pricing of this game should have been better communicated and executed, and honestly, the discourse tells me that Nintendo needs to update the game and store listing with those changes soon. Apart from that, I think it's okay for Nintendo to price a game like this. Mobile gamers are not entitled to play everything on the App Store, so if they don't want to pay for it, so be it.

 

[oti]

The mobile market is so weird. I don't know why you just wouldn't want everything at a reasonably low price instead of possibly suckered in to spending a bunch of money.

The vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of downloads never spend a single Cent on anything in a game. Why do you think the most successful F2P games are all basically the same whale bait games? All they're trying to do is generate as many downloads as possible (=ever wondered why there are Superbowl ads for F2P games?) and hope that some of those downloads will pay. With some luck there will be a couple of whales amongst them who will, due to clever psychological tricks, get tricked into an unhealthy spending loop and finance the majority of your operation as a game developer.

That's why I'm always wondering how even the most successful F2P developers can sleep at night. Imagine a bunch of whales deciding to quit your game at once out of a sudden. That's life threatening.

 

[serenewarfare]

Oh, that's good -- I saw the coin thing elsewhere (where you get Toad), and assumed there was more you could buy.

Nah, you get those coin packs with MyNintendo points, which you get from progressing in the game and completing "missions" (achievements).

 

[Munti]

OP, I think you misinterpret the term "pro-consumer". It doesn't mean that it is what a certain group (or a maiority) wants.

And why do you think Nintendo "has to" turn AC and FE into F2P? Firstly, long-term profit is more important then short-term. I'm neither a strategist or analyst, but maybe Nintendo thinks that with this strategy they will have better long-term success. Who knows?
And secondly, why does it matter if Nintendo makes more money with a method then with another method? The world/Nintendo doesn't end because of that.

 

[Kouriozan]

Id just be a separate app to the premium one. Lite version is free with the first few levels, then an add for the full game. This was really popular to do a bit ago, but have fallen out of style not that F2P games have taken over. Nintendo could have done that on IOS as well but for some reason chose not too.

They probably wanted people to create a Nintendo Account before knowing about that unlock price.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

This is essentially what I'm talking about. If Nintendo could have done this and they didn't, that's pretty disappointing.

Theres a reason why people don't really do this anymore. I don't have the figures to hand, but the more clicks you put between the customer and payment the less likely they are to do it.

If you're playing a game you already downloaded, and a popup appears and says "Hey, unlock everything else for £7.99" the user is much more likely to purchase there and then than they are by going into the app store, buying and downloading another app.

 

[KingSnake]

No, that's a misconception starting to be created in this thread and it's completely false. If the game would be $9,99 upfront, the result would be even worse and a lot of people wouldn't even consider it, nevermind buy it. At least in this case, people are downloading it, liking it and playing it even if they don't like the model. It's definitely better for their brand and their profit in comparison to the upfront price, despite the perception.

But in the end it's still infinitely inferior to the F2P model in literally every way.

Have you even read what you quoted?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I don't know if I buy the argument that more profitable is inherently more pro-consumer.

 

[LinkSlayer64]

"Nintendo...is a mistake"
joking aside, I disagree completely. It is not anti consumer.
Consumers who support the ridiculous types of models today like completely RNG based IAP with skinner box techniques need to have their eyes opened.
Things cost money, our society is based on the exchange of currency for goods and services, can't wait for them to go to get a quote from a mechanic to fix their car, because that's just like Super Mario Run; free to start, but then you have to pay (I'm being facetious, before someone says the comparison is out of left field)

 

[Aostia]

So far the convertion rate has been very high so...

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Theres a reason why people don't really do this anymore. I don't have the figures to hand, but the more clicks you put between the customer and payment the less likely they are to do it.

If you're playing a game you already downloaded, and a popup appears and says "Hey, unlock everything else for £7.99" the user is much more likely to purchase there and then than they are by going into the app store, buying and downloading another app.

Well, that makes a lot of sense. I can see why they went this route then!

 

[cackhyena]

Have even read what you quoted?

I don't think so. Seem's to be hell bent on being right, so you know how that goes.

 

[Nishastra]

The line " they will also lose mobile consumer trust" also tickled me.

Losing consumer trust by not nickel and dime-ing the customer! Oh my!

Yeah. People are genuinely fooled by the F2P system, that's why it works so well. They'll spend money hand over fist on something that's "free".

 

[Worthintendo]

One will kill the other. Whales are the bread and butter of this and an unlock all option eliminates them completely and negates the entire point of microtransactions.

It really doesn't, you can have people like me who want the whole thing and are willing to pay the full unlock price and then you can have people who aren't sure and only want to pay a little bit at a time to play a small handful of levels.

 

[?oe?oe]

Bloody hell Nintendo, doomed again.

 

[EDarkness]

Not really. This is what most people see when they go to download (replace the open button with a "get" button). No mention of $9.99 anywhere. The charge is buried all the way at the bottom under "top in-app purchases"

Hmmm...this is what I see when I go to an app page...

It says there's a $9.99 charge for levels. I guess on the phone it's a bit more truncated. I never buy things on my phone, so I don't know what that looks like.

Also, reading the "reviews" on that page...ugh. I feel sorry for the human race.

 

[sanstesy]

Have you even read what you quoted?

I'm generally answering, not to you specifically. You were just the latest post bringing it up when I started to write.

 

[oti]

It really doesn't, you can have people like me who want the whole thing and are willing to pay the full unlock price and then you can have people who aren't sure and only want to pay a little bit at a time to play a small handful of levels.

No, what you're describing makes no sense. The point of F2P is to not have a ceiling on what players can pay.

 

[KingSnake]

I'm generally answering, not to you specifically. You were just the latest post bringing it up when I started to write.

Don't quote me if you don't answer to me. Especially when you start by saying it's a misconception and then say practically the same thing I actually said in that post. FFS.

 

[Air]

You can't change the conversation by playing the same game as everyone else. Nintendo is using Mario as leverage to get people to value games on mobile. It's pro consumer because we get to know up front what we're dealing with instead of imbalanced gameplay that relies on users buying their way through. Remember, Nintendo is a traditional games company. If they monetize the gameplay in a way where without cash you're likely to fail, it will go against their whole philosophy.

 

[RagnarokX]

Nintendo's goal with mobile is to bring over gamers from mobile to their traditional hardware. If consumers won't bite at $10 they won't bite $30-$60 games either, so they're not who Nintendo is after. And if it was F2P people would have even less incentive to cross over since they got Mario for free. $10 is probably a good amount for a foot-in-the-door psychological manipulation strategy.

 

[KingSnake]

I don't think so. Seem's to be hell bent on being right, so you know how that goes.

But I started my post by saying I partially agree with him. Maybe that was a misconception.

 

[DR2K]

You don't always have to go the most unethical route to make money. Super Mario Run is doing really well and setting records.

 

[Glix]

The first few times I finished a level i went to check if i was allowed to play another yet, like some kind of reflex.

Its so fucking refreshing to just be able to play as much as Inwant

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Well, that makes a lot of sense. I can see why they went this route then!

Its why apple has started pushing developers to use a special type of in-game window that has direct access to the app store for the purposes of cross-promotion. Typically, you'll see an ad that says "Buy this game". Clicking it minimises the app, takes you to the store and then you do the standard procedure. The new method just opens the store within your current app and presents you with the buy button.

The clicks are the same, but the amount of time is significantly less (We're talking about seconds here, and it does make a difference). To say mobile users have a short attention span is an understatement

 

[sanstesy]

Don't quote me if you don't answer to me. Especially when you start by saying it's a misconception and then say practically the same thing I actually said in that post. FFS.

I straight-up wrote "No, that's a misconception starting to be created in this thread (...)". I just expanded your point by quoting your paragraph. Nothing to get mad about.

 

[mrlion]

lol the OP confuses me so much.

People here were complaining that microtransactions were the biggest mistake in the industry. And now you say not having them is the biggest mistake Nintendo did? What in the flying hell is happening in this site?

 

[Griss]

Fuck the mobile audience and fuck Nintendo's profits. Quality software comes first.

Good show Nintendo. If you can't get people to pay 10 bucks for Mario on mobile how are you going to get them to pay 60 bucks for super Mario on switch?

Nintendo should throw the traditional f2p mobile audience overboard like the disgusting human refuse they are. Don't devalue gaming, Nintendo. Save it.
It's your destiny.

 

[KingSnake]

I straight-up wrote "No, that's a misconception starting to be created in this thread (...)". I just expanded your point by quoting your paragraph. Nothing to get mad about.

What does the "No" straight after my post mean then? Stop spinning it, please. It's disingenuous. Just admit you didn't read it properly and we move forward.